Talk:White supremacy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

In the header paragraph, the article describes as a "political ideology". I contest that it is not, since it has no basis of a system of governing. Bizerus (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make; please make a precise request. However, anything along these lines will probably be declined anyway, because WP:CONSENSUS needs to be obtained before making an edit request for such a potentially controversial change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

White Supremacy is the failure of early Europeans to recognize humanity in others not like themselves and acting upon the ignorance in demeaning dominating behaviors, leading to acts of genocide. 1RBunn (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security strategy adds white supremacy to list of threats

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/department-homeland-security-strategy-adds-white-supremacy-list-threats-n1057136FusionLord (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

---

White supremacy → White supremacism – -ism indicates an ideology. The parent article is also at "Supremacism". Article editor (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Lmatt (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - this move request is absurd and contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, which is the relevant policy. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This violates WP:COMMONNAME. Dimadick (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose common name for the term is "white supremacy".--Ortizesp (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I was about to agree with the nominator until I did a Google search. But I am frankly astonished that this is the case, since it clearly should be supremacism. Very weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why Germany is present on the topic?

Since when German supremacism = white supremacism. You're playing with the words here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50C5:4A00:C496:DCFD:42FC:B8B7 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Enslaved whites

Napata102 (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC) the reference to criticism of 'white supremacy' has been reverted by some knee jerk reaction without any explanation. Mills has written that: '‘Those termed white have generally had a civil, moral, and juridical standing that has lifted them above the other “races” They have been the expropriators; others have been the expropriated’‘ This simply does not reflect history where whites were also being enslaved by Corsairs and sold to North Africa. This is heavily documented even Wiki has an entry on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates ... How can he say that whites were always the slavers /expropriators in relation to non-whites?. The reference to criticism and a simple quote is entirely justified. The recent work suggesting that those who view whites as always on top have internalised white racism is also simply of general interest. No one is seeking to prove their points on wiki simply that readers should be aware of the alternative views, have teh reference to follow up and make up and make up their own minds. I will seek to revert the entry. Napata102 (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You should stop edit warring. There are many problems with your edit, as explained in Grayfell's edit summary here. It's a mystery to me what you mean by "reverted by some knee jerk reaction without any explanation". Both the people who have reverted you have explained why. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC).

Sources must discuss the subject. You wrote that " Some have argued that Mills’ use of the term implying that whites have always been on top does not reflect even recent history" but Davis doesn't make that argument and of course he isn't "some" - he's just one person. This is what we call original research which we don't allow. As for the Barbary pirates, one of the sources says "In the early 17th century, the Mediterranean swarmed with pirate ships manned by blue-eyed Caucasians who spoke English, Dutch or Cornish. In Barbary, they found convenient bases to outfit their ships, as well as ready markets for their booty and slaves. Tunis, especially, was an international rogues’ gallery in which Arabs, Berbers and other African nomads assimilated with Turks, Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Dutchmen, Englishmen and ethnically Greek or Balkan Janissaries, elite soldiers who owed allegiance to the Ottoman throne." (although again, this doesn't discuss white supremacy and is thus original research, we can do a bit of OR here, just not in the article). A major issue is that this paragraph seems to be about "The term's recent rise in popularity among leftist activists has been characterized by some as counterproductive. Your edit doesn't relate to this at all. I'm struggling to see how Dapo Ladimeji's criticism of Charles W. Mills would fit into this article, although I see that Ladiemji has written about him more than once.[1] It wouldn't even belong in his article without more context. In this article it's some sort of back-handed way of attacking the concept by criticising an author. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking further I see you've made a similar edit here about a living person.[2] You seem to be a supporter of this author and wrote an article about him which was deleted. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There are more. I've posted to WP:BLPN#Malcolm Gladwell and since then I've found more edits using this author as a source. Admins can also view Dapo Ladimeji Doug Weller talk 15:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Even if we accepted that this was a reliable source, I do not think this would belong here. Since this article barely mentions Mills at all, it seems very strange to include an obscure critique of one of Mills's positions stripped out of context. This is merely going to confuse readers by challenging a position which the article never even explains, based on selective interpretations of primary sources.

The source doesn't appear reliable, however. Napata102 has been using Dapo Ladimeji's writing for the African Century Journal (either directly or via academia.edu) for similar comments at several other articles, spanning several years, and this is their major activity on Wikipedia. Further, they seem to come back every few months to re-add this material when other people remove it. This behavior is hard to distinguish from spamming. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing it from various articles where he clearly isn't a reliable source. Worse he's used to make vague general critical comments, usually without attribution. If this starts up again I think a block will be necessary. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence?

"The term is also used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people (as evidenced by historical and contemporary sociopolitical structures such as the Atlantic slave trade, Jim Crow laws in the United States, the set of "White Australia" policies from the 1890s until the mid-1970s, and apartheid in South Africa)." Social, political, historical, or institutional domination by white people... of what? Their own countries? Or is the sentence implying a world domination by white people conspiracy theory? 2600:6C50:757F:DD72:7C50:4D7:6525:7DAF (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Is scientific racism scientific?

The 2nd sentence of the lead says: White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.

This reads as if Wikipedia is saying that racism is founded in science, particularly since pseudoscientific arguments are mentioned separately.

I propose a change to: White supremacy has roots in the pseudoscientific doctrine of scientific racism and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the following would be better: "White supremacy has roots in the now-discredited doctrine of scientific racism and often relies on pseudoscientific arguments."

Science does not work like religion. With science, people develop falsifiable theories that explain known facts, and then test those theories. So-called scientific racism was an attempt to do this. It led to people developing better explanations. Scientific racism today is a fringe idea; it has been disproven. But 100 years ago it was mainstream. Toddy1 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer your wording. But I would also prefer italics for the term ‘scientific racism’, to show that it is a specific expression i.e. that ‘scientific’ is not used in the usual way. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

ok. Toddy1 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A normal use of italics is for scientific names or for emphasis. Take a look at MOS:ITALICS and MOS:IT. I like Toddy1's wording but I'm not sure about italics. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To User:Doug Weller and others: I was looking at the MOS to see if it would be permissible to use initial capitals and quotes for “scientific racism” , since my preference would be to use both for this expression. The MOS does not support my preference. However, under the section about capital letters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Do_not_use_for_emphasis

I found this:

Introduction of a term of art may be wikilinked and, optionally, given in non-emphasis italics on first occurrence. Example: use The community of researchers in a field may produce a scientific consensus, not ... may produce a Scientific Consensus.

To me, “scientific racism” is a term of art because the words are not used in their normal sense: if they were being used in this way, Wikipedia would be saying that racism is scientific. (I don’t think that I have ever come across this expression outside Wikipedia.)

That is my reason for wishing to use italics for scientific racism. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: a term of art is "a word or phrase that has a precise, specialized meaning within a particular field or profession." Like "public domain" in copyright law. I'm not sure "scientific racism" qualifies or is similar to the example given. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To User:Doug Weller and others: To me, the expression ‘scientific racism’ comes exactly within your definition of a term of art. However, my aim was not to alert sophisticated readers to the fact that the expression ‘scientific racism’ is being used as a term of art, but to indicate to unsophisticated readers that the word ‘scientific’ is not being used in its ordinary sense. I don’t understand why you object to this. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your intent, but I'm not sure how to do it without using something akin to Scare quotes. But I've just realised that the appropriate place to start it Scientific racism or rather its talk page. We shouldn't use a convention here different to the one used there, should we? Doug Weller talk 17:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To User:Doug Weller and others:

I don’t think that the relevant comparison is with how the expression is presented in the Scientific racism article itself, but in other articles which, like this one, refer to the term. I have looked at the way the expression is used in the main article on Racism.

The first time it is used in the article is under Etymology:

These early theories guided pseudo-scientific research assumptions; the collective endeavors to adequately define and form hypotheses about racial differences are generally termed scientific racism, though this term is a misnomer, due to the lack of any actual science backing the claims.

The expression is not in italics, but this is in the context that ‘this term’ is being explained.

Under Ideology it is in quotes:

Racism existed during the 19th century as "scientific racism", which attempted to provide a racial classification of humanity.

There is a subsection on Scientific racism in the Racism article. The first time the expression is used in this section, it is in italics.

The term scientific racism refers to the use of science to justify and support racist beliefs, which goes back to the early 18th century, though it gained most of its influence in the mid-19th century, during the New Imperialism period.

So it looks like it is acceptable to use quotes, or italics. I would prefer quotes, as this is more generally understood. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Or change it there. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt. "Misused punctuation can also have similar effects. Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be considered carefully." My experience is that the use of quotes in that fashhion often gets reversed, and I'd prefer another solution. Which is easiest done by adding a qualifier, either pseudoscientific or "discredited" (of course without quotes". Doug Weller talk 13:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m happy with the current wording, as recently amended by Toddy1, which now includes ‘discredited’. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Toddy1. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine

Whiteness is a western concept based on colonialism. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine do not base their ideology on whiteness as whiteness is foreign to Ukraine, and many of them are hardly "white" to begin with. Neo-Nazis in Ukraine align themselves with people in Chechnya, the Caucasus, and even Central Asia. Their common enemy is Russians, who are a European people, so the idea that white supremacy is their actual motive is ludicrous.

Latin America

There's no mention of Latin America, despite the fact that the concept of whiteness, racial purity, and racial categorization all have their origins with the Spanish colonization of the Americas? This page seriously needs work on. There is not one Latin American country that wasn't built on white supremacy, same goes for Anglo America.

First sentence of the introduction

White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. Is it correct, that the (mostly) people, who belive, that they are bether than others, bether than Blacks or bether than Yellows or Reds or bether than every other specific group of peope, know that their belief/faith is racist? --194.230.159.102 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Deutsches Historisches Museum Der Stürmerplakat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to promote White supremacists over Antifa.

Wikipedia present a nice definition of White supremacists. They don't say anything about terrorists activities that they do. Where as for Antifa they put a lot of negative things: terrorist, illegal, which is probably lies by white people and push by Trump! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.175.113 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting, because what we usually get are screeds from white supremacists and neo_Nazis that we actively disfavor them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have opened the newly created section /political violence/ with Lynching in the United States. Feel free to improve the article. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Other ideas

{I moved this stuff out of the RfC because it is not responsive to the statement about which comments have been requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC))

• Comment: Another great idea would be to add polls based on political ideologies and political parties. By doing this, we could determine what certain groups of people think about black supremacy and white supremacy. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• What happened to your plan to end the RfC if you couldn't "get anyone on my side in 24 hours"? That was over 56 hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I changed my mind because I came up with new ideas. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• But your new ideas don;t have anything to do with the question asked at the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• How do they not? Not once have I said anything unrelated to the topic of white supremacy. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC was set up to get comments on a specific statement that you wrote: Black supremacy is referred to as a racial racial supremacist belief, while white supremacy is referred to as a racist belief. I do not see any reason why different terms should be used to describe them and I believe that we should either refer to both of them as racial supremacist or both of them as racist. Your "new ideas" have noting to do with whether "racist" or "racial supremacist" is used on these two articles, they're just musings about changes to this article, and they really don't belong in this discussion at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: I found a quote about black supremacy from MLK. Here is the quote:

• “A doctrine of black supremacy is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy. God is not interested in the freedom of black men or brown men or yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race, the creation of a society where every man will respect the dignity and worth of personality.”

Source: [3]

While black supremacy isn't outright being described as racist, MLK is saying that both black and white supremacy are dangerous. I believe that this quote should play a major role in deciding the description of both. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• You continue to comments in a way that is not responsive to your own RfC, so I've removed this thread from the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't you agree the the MLK quote is related to the RfC because it has a comparison between black and white supremacy and it should help the description of both topics? GamerKiller2347 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, I would not agree. Whether either concept is "dangerous" is no part of the RfC, which is limited to the statement which you wrote. If it's not already in it, the MLK quote can be added to the Black supremacy article, but not as support for its being "racist", because that's not what King said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't create this RfC so both could be described as "racist". I created this RfC so the same terms could be used to describe both. "Racial supremacist" and "racist" are just what the 2 articles say, so the actual terms shouldn't be limited to those 2. As such, I will update the description of the RfC to include my comment with the quote because I want everyone to see it. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• You cannot change the statement of the RfC after it has started and people have !voted, it makes an utter mess of things. I have reverted your edit, do not restore it. The current RfC is about the statekent you wrote when you started it, period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• In that case, I will end this RfC and start a new one. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added MLK's quote to Black supremacy. Alcaios (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Descriptions of Black and White Supremacy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A consenus was reached to keep everything the same GamerKiller2347 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

---

In the previous RfC, I made several comments that were interpreted as being off topic. My comments were not intended to be off topic. Anyway, I still believe that black and white supremacy need to be described as the same thing. I have mentioned that even if there is an almost universal opinion on an issue, there will still be those that disagree. I have also mentioned this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:

• “A doctrine of black supremacy is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy. God is not interested in the freedom of black men or brown men or yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race, the creation of a society where every man will respect the dignity and worth of personality.”

Source: [4]

This quote says that all types of racial supremacies are dangerous. I believe that this quote should be used to make the decision on how to describe both supremacies. I have also mentioned that we could support our descriptions of supremacies if we add polls based on political ideologies and political parties. I would like to know everyone's opinions on everything that I just mentioned. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Anyway, I still believe that black and white supremacy need to be described as the same thing". Why? Do WP:RS treat them as the same thing? Because in about three years of being associated with the Black Supremacy article, what is most notable is that almost nothing is written about it - mainly because Bl Sup rarely manifests itself except as very fringe offensive rhetoric - it isn't a significant political force. Is rape of males by females treated as the same thing as the reverse. Why is that? Because one of the two barely exists and the other is sadly common. Should we treat Welsh Supremacy the same as Bl and Wh supremacy, even though we know that apart from a small number of very fringe Welshmen making ridiculously, offensively provocative remarks, Welsh Supremacy simply doesn't exist as a political force. Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please stop wasting time - Withdrawing your own failed RFC before it could be closed, just so you could reopen it again, appears to be gaming the system. If you believe that white supremacy is not necessarily racist, you have failed to present sources and have shown a lack of familiarity with the topic.

Your only source for this perspective is a single passing mention, buried in the middle of a much longer speech from 1965. King presumed the possibility of sources which defended white supremacy as non-racist, for rhetorical purposes, but did not cite or specifically mention any such sources. This is beyond flimsy.

To put it another way, cherry-picking quotes from MLK is a time-honored tradition, but it is completely insufficient. Wikipedia can and should draw on the decades of published, reliable scholarship on this topic. If you know of even a single reliable source for black supremacy which isn't already discussed, please bring it to talk:black supremacy. This is not the place for interminable discussion in defense of false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• GamerKiller2347, No, no, a thousand times no. That quote does nothing to establish that black supremacy and white supremacy, in your words "need to be described as the same thing." Never, ever, should we say in Wikipedia's voice that white supremacy, which has caused unimaginable harm to millions of people is "the same thing" as black supremacy, which is a wacko conspiracy theory. It's on par with holocaust denial, and it ought to be outright forbidden. Vexations (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The closing of the previous RfC just to open this one is a clear indication that GameKiller2347 is not actually interested in gathering the community's comments, but is attempting to ram his views down the community's collective throats. King's statement that black supremacy is "dangerous" is taken entirely out of context in order to bolster GamerKiller2347's personal view that white supremacy and black supremacy are two sides of the same coin. In fact, what King said was:

  And then another thing I can understand. We’ve been pushed around so long; we’ve been the victims of lynching mobs so long; we’ve been the victims of economic injustice so long—still the last hired and the first fired all over this nation. And I know the temptation. I can understand from a psychological point of view why some caught up in the clutches of the injustices surrounding them almost respond with bitterness and come to the conclusion that the problem can’t be solved within, and they talk about getting away from it in terms of racial separation. But even though I can understand it psychologically, I must say to you this afternoon that this isn’t the way. Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy. [Applause] No, I hope you will allow me to say to you this afternoon that God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race. [Applause] And I believe that with this philosophy and this determined struggle we will be able to go on in the days ahead and transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

  Read in its proper context, it's clear that King means that black supremacy is "dangerous" to his movement for civil rights for all. To use this to leverage to a statement in Wikipedia's voice that black supremacy is "racist" is not only a drastic misreading of King's words, it's an expression on GK2347's part of a PoV so severe as to disqualify them from editing either of these articles. King's statement that "Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy." cannot be twisted into meaning that both have precisely the same qualities, since it actually means that favoring any one group over any other is antithetical to King's philosophy and his moral crusade. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I support the view that this is an inappropriate use of an RFC. Gumsaint (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I have not been able to convince the community yet, I have come up with this opener for black supremacy:

• Black supremacy or black supremacism is a racial supremacist belief which maintains that black people are superior to people of other races. Unlike white supremacy, which is almost universally considered to be racist, black supremacy is not usually considered to be racist.

I have come up with this opener for white supremacy:

• White supremacy or white supremacism is a racial supremacist belief which maintains that white people are superior to people of other races. Unlike black supremacy, which is not usually considered to be racist, white supremacy is almost universally considered to be racist.

Thoughts? GamerKiller2347 (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• You keep asking "Thoughts", but then you entirely ignore the feedback you're getting. The sum total of the "thoughts" here is that your attempt to equate black supremacy with white supremacy without any reliable sources to support that contention, or to warp Martin Luther King Jr's comment into a reason to support that false equivalence is just not going to fly, not matter how many times you rephrase it. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am trying my best to listen to all of the feedback, but I still want to get people on my side, and I still have enough ideas for hopes of just that.GamerKiller2347 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, you are not. You are, in fact, totally ignoring everything that you're being told. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Invited by bot. GamerKiller2347:

There's a reason you're getting zero support. A lot of people show up wanting to argue some version of "truth" or advocate their favored position on issues. We wouldn't be able to function if we allowed that sort of approach - on the internet there is always someone who will spend 43 months arguing the "truth" that the Earth is flat. In order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a chaotic mess and endless argument zone, we have a set of policies defining a certain kind of approach to content. I would summarize it as "Wikipedia is supposed to be an accurate summary of what Reliable Sources say about a subject". You won't get very far if you step away from that model. This article says "White supremacy [] is the racist belief..." because lots of Reliable Sources say that. There appear to be very few sources on Black supremacy, and apparently they don't directly call it racist. And that's the end of that. You can't engage in Original research or Synthesis to just make up what you think the articles should say. We can't and wont do that, because a hundred thousand articles would turn into chaotic endless argument zones if we allowed truth or fairness or whatever else be argued. If you have a concern that one of the articles isn't accurately summarizing the available Reliable Sources, then you can cite the sources and there are various policies and guidelines for (potentially) supporting that case. Right now it seems you're trying to argue truth or fairness or something, which doesn't work. Right now, I'm not seeing you presenting any sort of case that either of the articles is an inaccurate summary of the sources. Alsee (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's what the Anti-Defamation League states that racism is:

• "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."

Source: [5]

Black and white supremacy have one thing in common: They believe that their race is superior to other races. This fits the ADL's definition of racism. Therefore, I have a reliable source to prove that both are racist. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: I'm afraid you don't. You don't seem to understand our policy sourcing - we need sources that state that explicitly, what you are doing we call original research. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I believe that we should make an exception here. It may not be explicitly stated, but anyone with common sense would know that the ADL's definition of racism states that all types of supremacy are racist. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, no policy reason, lack of reliable source stating this specifically. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous editors. This would be at best OR and at worst un-sourced POV pushing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: For those of you stating that both articles need to be written in a neutral point of view, we need to replace "racist" on white supremacy with "racial supremacist". As far as I'm concerned, outright calling something racist does not promote a neutral point of view, even if white supremacy is almost universally considered to be racist. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• We are "neutral" in that we neutrally present what reliable sources say . It cannot be otherwise, because presenting our own views is WP:Original research, which is not allowed. We report what those sources say and do not put spin or interpretation or unsourced analysis on it. That is what WP:NPOV means, not that we do not call racist things "racist". From WP:NPOV:

  All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

  "All the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's why you keep being asked for reliable sources for your contention, which you have not been able to do. You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around that. Bring us some sources that support you and they'll be honestly considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

GamerKiller2347 this old account's blocklog is yours, right? [6] You used it to edit your talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @GamerKiller2347: Doug Weller talk 18:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I plan to end this RfC really soon. Although I still stand by my belief that black and white supremacy need to be described as the same thing, the 2 sources that I have found have not been able to convince the community about this. I googled "white supremacy is not racist" and the results are not what I want. I highly doubt that I will be able to find a reliable source to reach my goal. If the rest of the community wants to end the RfC, I'm down for it. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• You are incorrect, No sources have been presented which support your contention. Absolutely none. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes there have: [7] [8] GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, there have not. It has been explained to you a nuber of times why neither of those sources support your contention, but you continue not to hear. I'm of a mind to be totally WP:BOLD and close this RfC myself on the grounds that you're actually not interested in anything the community has to say, that you have a raging case of WP:IDHT, and that you are, in fact, trolling us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your comment was completely unnecessary. They are sources, but they have been unable to convince the community. That is what I said when I announced that I would close the RfC. Regardless of what you think, I am actually interested in what the community has to say. Almost everyone has not been on my side, which is why I plan to close the RfC. The reason why I closed the previous RfC and started this one was because you told me that I could not change my RfC statement and I appeared to mislead people on what I actually wanted. The reason why I changed my mind about initially closing the RfC was because I came up with new ideas at the last minute. They still weren't able to convince the community, but how could I have known this? I don't make RfC comments expecting editors to be against me. I make RfC comments in order to convince them, even if they do turn out to be unsuccessful in the long run. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• GamerKiller2347, it doesn't matter whether you close this or someone else does, the RFC has gone off the rails. You will need to do a lot more work before starting an RFC again. You will need to read the talk page's archives, because this has already been discussed several times. You will also need to get a better understanding of WP:RS/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Additionally, you will need to review WP:RFCBEFORE, and finally, you must be open to the possibility that you are completely wrong about this. Remember that nobody personally owes you a discussion, so you do not get to set the terms of these discussions. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This has just been done. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

Requesting to add these paragraphs to the "Effect of the media" section.

Add this paragraph after Richard Hasen's block quote: As the White supremacist movement shifted its presence from print to digital, they were consistently looking for new technologies they could exploit and penetrate with their ideologies. For example, Daniels mentions how the emergence of cloaked sites, websites published under a concealed authorship in order to hide a political agenda, allowed for White supremacists to expand the range of acceptable ideas to discuss, or what she refers to as shifting the “Overton window.”

Add this sentence between the Jessie Daniels quote and the sentence about Kathleen Blee: Once white supremacists symbols travel from their separated community and into the public discourse of mainstream media, they see it like a victory as they have successfully shifted the “Overton window” and have possibly inspired “normal” people to question their other ideologies.

Add this paragraph to the end of the section: The algorithms of search engines and social media platforms have also allowed for ideas of white supremacy to permeate society. In her recent publication, Daniels writes how the rise of the alt-right, as well as the recent ideas of white supremacy and white nationalism, are due in part to the “emerging media ecosystem powered by algorithms.” Search engine algorithms enable these racist ideas to spread as they “deliver search results for those who seek confirmation for racist notions” as in the case of Dylann Roof where a Google search of “black-on-white crime” shaped his racist beliefs and eventually led to him committing the Charleston church shooting. These search engine algorithms and their autocomplete features also suggest racist ideas to users and provide websites where communities can support and grow their white supremacist ideologies. As previously mentioned, the algorithms of social media platforms also increase the spread of White supremacist ideas when hate symbols like Pepe the Frog travel from anonymous platforms like 4Chan and Reddit to mainstream news media sources which amplifies and shifts the focus to ideas of White supremacy. Frledtofu (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"Western supremacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Western supremacy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Western supremacy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MBJAnderson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it encyclopedic to refer to Charles M. Blow as a "black" columnist?

I suggest not, though I'm open to being persuaded. We do not, of course, specify the race of every other person we cite in this article (or any other article I'm aware of that deals with issues of race). I also see nothing in the quotation that makes Blow's race especially relevant. He is not, for instance, referring explicitly to his own experience as a black man but rather to that of others. Generalrelative (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that the section is worth being included at all. His own experience is not encyclopedic, and he isn't academic, he simply tied two unrelated, distantly far apart events together, and then proposed that it was part of a greater scheme without any actual data. I would be open to including the role of women in white supremacy if it came from an actual research paper, and not some random op-ed article. ShimonChai (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Turns out the op-ed made a significant enough impact to have been cited and discussed in peer-reviewed academic sources. See e.g. [9] and [10]. It is far from random. Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Rsk6400: "Neo-Nazism" is mentioned in the introduction as underlining "white supremacy", so the term can stand in for white supremacy. Also, the British Commonwealth paragraphs are not only colonial times because Winston Churchill is mentioned in a recent event and other information could surface. Shouldn't New Zealand then be with other Commonwealth countries instead of at the bottom? Altanner1991 (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this here. The lead section of any article is not a reliable source for WP. "The New Yorker" is a reliable source, but not an academic one. So, the idea that every incident of Neo-Nazism is also an incident of White Supremacism seems to be WP:SYNTH. Churchill was prime minister while the British Empire was still (largely) intact. To me, there seems to be little connection between Rhodesia before independence and New Zealand in the 21st century, especially since the sub-sections about Rhodesia and South Africa are about White supremacists in power, while the New Zealand section is about a lone terrorist. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok and thank you for the reply. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The most recent edits to this page seem a little strange and don't quite read correctly. I think this page needs some attention from a moderator. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neo-Nazism is generally white supremacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Neo-Nazism should be in the article because it is generally about white supremacy rather than fascism. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE JULY 2022
@Rsk6400: or any other commentors

Please discuss if you believe white supremacy should not include general neo-Nazi content. Since this has been ongoing for a long time (a few weeks already) I will go ahead short of any discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a case of original synthesis, see WP:SYNTH. Nothing that is not clearly connected to White supremacy by reliable sources (WP:RS) should be mentioned here. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Please point to the portions that have synthesis? They are all directly connected. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The Ukraine part and the Nazi part concentrate on neo-Nazism in general, and we'd also need much better sources for both parts. Also the claim "White supremacy, ... is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony and power" needs a much better source. Please seek consensus before making this change again. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the sources are not good enough. They are already good enough. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you answered about the Nazi part for the introduction. How are the sources "not good enough", exactly? They are perfectly fine sources. And it is not talking about neo-Nazism so that part about your comment made no sense. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For the record here is the portion in question as the Russia and Ukraine portions have been properly moved to the Neo-Nazism article and the archive link was missing: "White supremacy, as with racial supremacism in general, is rooted in ethnocentrism and a desire for hegemony and power, and has frequently resulted in violence against non-whites." It's connected to a reputable university and is more sourced than the average news article; not sure why that would be the case that it's not allowed. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: The onus to establish consensus is yours, see WP:ONUS. I gave two reasons why the Nazi part should not be added to this article IMHO. You can of course question my reasons, but please do so based on WP policies and on reliable sources. Don't repeat your changes without establishing consensus here. When we give such a general judgement about White supremacy being rooted in a certain desire, we can be sure that there are different views by different scholars. We have to represent all of them. The source you gave is reliable, but not good enough because it concentrates on Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist politician, who is in no way representative for the scholars on racism. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said but the last revert did not have that content anymore, so Gramsci and Russia/Ukraine are irrelevant at this point. And indeed I do of course hope that a good consensus can be reached for the content. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The Gramsci source is no longer a question so why are the holocaust portions being removed? Altanner1991 (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 Why are you removing the inclusion of the holocaust in the introduction alongside apartheid/White Australia/Jim Crow? It appears to be disruptive and you can be reported. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: You have failed to communicate why the holocaust portion is being reverted. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: The body of the article has the same content so it can definitely be on the page; not sure how my sources are any different. We can seek dispute resolution to help in the matter. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I am retracting my request for this talk page section because Jewish people are, in fact, sometimes considered "White". Altanner1991 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Gobineau

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Rsk6400 Gobineau was highly influential with regards to white supremacy: see his article page. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the same basic argument applies here as to the "Neo-Nazism is generally white supremacy" section above. You need to show that the idea of "whiteness" was central to Gobineau's worldview. I do think that this would be valuable if you can do so, but the specific content you sought to add did not accomplish this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize some of the content was mine, so I restored only the old content which has been there for years without issue. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It was not his worldview but his influence that pertained to white supremacy. His page shows that this was indeed the case, including the pertinence that has been given with Nazi Germany. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC); edited 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nazi Germany, Gobineau (including my recent additions), and Nordicism should all either be together or not in the article at all. I would like to do that right now, by transferring the content to Nordicism, unless there are objections. I would give some time for this discussion but it otherwise is not consistent to only remove my portions. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Done. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sabino Arana

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He was no white separatist, considering he's a basque nationalist, and therefore do not want a state for white people, but one for the basque, I don't think I need to give any source for this, considering it's the main reason he's known for The basque savior (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done There is really no evidence from his article that he was a white separatist. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nordicism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Archive 2 has lots of debate on whether or not to include this, and Grayfell (talk · contribs) in 2016 asserted that it remain in the article. It would be good to find a clear consensus on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altanner1991 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking through that archive, I couldn't find any comment by Grayfell, nothing on Gobineau, and only unsubstantial comments on Nordicism. I support your suggestion to move it all to Nordicism. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I never mentioned Gobineau, and yes Grayfell's comments were as far as the Archive 4. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991: While I feel well able to go along with your edits until 04:27, 30 July 2022, I don't see much justification for your more recent ones. The most important problems I see are the removal of Rhodesia and South African apartheid together with your changes at the beginning of the lead section. According to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, an article should start with a good definition. The idea of having an extra section called "definition" seems strange to me. Also, "White supremacy" has been used by a lot of normal people (not only scholars), including White supremacists themselves, especially during the bad old days of Jim Crow. White Australia also obviously is about Whitenesss, and - yes - White supremacy was justified by pseudo-science (I'll add the reference soon). --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to contribute right now, but I'd like to voice support for everything Rsk6400 just said. Couldn't have put it better. Generalrelative (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll start a new section for the recent reverts, so that the discussion is not under the topic of Nordicism. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 Thank you for the constructive comments and help with the article. I now consider this talk page section to be closed. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC); edited 09:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add a sub-section?

Should we add a sub-section about white supremacy in latinamerica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Tell me which sources and I can do the rest. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Distinguishing between "supremacy" and "supremacism"

User:Generalrelative reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_supremacy&diff=1087305767&oldid=1084332087 this edit that I had done, saying it ought to be discussed here.

BEFORE:

White supremacy or white supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.

AFTER:

White supremacy is any social order in which white people dominate those of other races and are considered to be entitled to such domination because of their supposed superiority to those others. White supremacism is the belief that white supremacy should prevail.

My edit summary said:

Here I am distinguishing between supremacy and supremacism; the former being the social order in which one group dominates others and the latter being the beilef that that is as it ought to be.

Although my phrasing may not be perfect and might bear refinement, the difference between the meanings of these two words should be made clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not against this change in principle; it is indeed perfectly logical. However I have two concerns: 1) This distinction may not be consistently followed in the reliable sources, in which case it might be considered an instance of original research by Wikipedia's definition; 2) of more immediate concern, changing just the initial sentence rendered much of what followed nonsensical –– or at least confusing –– since throughout the rest of the lead and the body of the article the two terms are used interchangeably. I'd like to see each of these points addressed before we adopt the distinction in the opening sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My experience with the sources is that they're far more likely to use the terms interchangeably than to draw this distinction. I would be happy to be proven wrong; I generally prefer it when different words have different meanings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! Generalrelative (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. White supremacy is primarily not the state of white people having more power than other racial groups; it is the belief that whites are superior in xyz ways because of their race. Replace "supremacy" with "superiority", and the meaning becomes quite clear. For what it's worth, that seems to be the definition given in dictionaries, with the second meaning having secondary status. Includes second meaning: [11]. Only first meaning: [12] [13] It is possible that the above distinction is made in some social science journals—I would not know—but it is certainly not the common way of going about things. 2600:1700:1154:3500:65DE:6C0:3B59:934A (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTADICTIONARY means we don't use dictionary content (see wiktionary.org for that). We need academic sources that discuss in more detail than a dictionary. Hopefully that clears things up. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverts back to July 30th, 2022

@Rsk6400 @Generalrelative I would like to respond to your comments about my edits — they seemed well sourced but as you raised concerns I will answer to that in discussion.... The changes were based on what is sourced, that means that Apartheid has no references to white "supremacy" other than Baasskap alone, and even there it is only a single source. Rhodesia is the same situation: we need sources much like was said with regards to the Holocaust. Regarding the definition of the term(s), my basis was on WP:LEDE, which further states that article introductions should not include anything not already in the body of the article, unless for small random facts in certain situations. To adhere to this principle, the first section would be called Description (instead of Definition). Not sure what you mean by scholars and white supremacists having used the term, in the latter example since Jim Crow as you said, but it is good you will add a reference for White Australia. Thanks as always and best, Altanner1991 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Apartheid and Rhodesia on the one hand and Nazi ideology on the other is that the former always used the word "white", while Nazi obsession with Jews had nothing to do with skin colour. The obsession with skin colours is a typical American one, originating from slavery. You are right that there is some content of the lead which is not covered in the body, but IMHO that should be solved by adding to the body. Regarding scholars: I was referring to your version of the lead which started In scholarly work, particularly in critical race theory or intersectionality,... What I wanted to say was that also outside of scholarly work and especially outside critical race theory people use the expression "White supremacy". I think that important because you don't need an elaborate theory to see that White supremacy is blatant racist. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the Apartheid and Rhodesia rationale is that you are interpreting on your own rather than using outside sources.

The introduction represents the body, not the other way around, unless for small exceptions.

For your last point: again, absolutely no sources are being provided, so I am not okay with it. We can't base article structure and content on your opinions or unsupported claims. I am not sure if the usage of the term "white supremacy" by white supremacists themselves qualifies as a verifiable/reliably sourced support for the claim of White Australia as white supremacy, but perhaps outside editors could contribute. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC); edited 09:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

With sourcing on Rhodesia and Apartheid this leaves only White Australia.

White supremacy is a unique term; there are others, for example: "white privilege", and "racism". Following are some sources:

• White supremacy is highly associated with violence; mentions Jim Crow but not White Australia
• Scholarly study describing white privilege as a unique concept from white supremacy
• Opinion piece about not confusing the terms white supremacy and white privilege

Although white supremacy can be applied in a variety of contexts, we should be careful so as to not make assumptions.

Altanner1991 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC); edited 12:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop that ! We have not reached a consensus yet. Please keep in mind that all editors are volunteers, including myself, and so may not always have the time to respond as quickly as you like, or may even not be willing to respond at all, since they think that everything has already been said. I added a source (the one you provided, thanks for that) to the first sentence. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What are the other issues regarding your revert? I was trying to keep the pace of BRD. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we have been discussing long enough now, feel free to seek WP:dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We need a source for White Australia. If it is unsourced it cannot be in the article. We cannot say that all racism by white people is "white supremacy" per-se. Source needs to say "white supremacy". Altanner1991 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 You have been given seven days to add the source you promised for White Australia (diff). I will give this more time but after that if no source can be provided then I will have to revert. Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I never promised a ref for White Australia. As I already said, feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping things could be resolved on this discussion, if possible. A major grievance I have besides unsourced language ("supremacy" is more extreme than any old racism), is that the introduction no longer fulfills WP:Lede: the description needs to be in a section called Description, which is very normal across Wikipedia articles, and the balance in the lede gives undue weight to more minor parts of the article. Regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Given the unexplained reverts I would also like to include the Holocaust as part of the spectrum of white supremacy, especially but not necessarily with White Australia, as I think the Holocaust was more seriously "supremacist", if we are taking these kinds of liberties. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

White supremacy in latinamerica

I think we should have that section in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

Add Anti-Mexican sentiment and Racism against Black Americans into the see also section. Many white supremacists hate Black Americans and Mexican immigrants. 91.207.28.164 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done That section is getting very long, but there's nothing that obviously doesn't go there, including these two. (That is more a depressing reflection on humanity than an actionable complaint.) 3mi1y (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022 (2)

Add Hispanophobia and Afrophobia to see also section. White supremacists hate Hispanics and anything African. 91.207.28.164 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done 3mi1y sums up my feelings on this. Sigh. —Sirdog (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"now-discredited doctrine of scientific racism"

The link for "now-discredited" sends to pseudoscience page, that's not a proof that scientific racism is discredited. Can we have an actual proper proof? Also, is racism correct word for racial science? 84.250.178.217 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the scientific racism article instead of the Easter Egg link to pseudoscience. Scientific racism is pseudoscience. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Argumentum ad logicam. Zihanzhao29 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that the wikilink in question is no longer present. I agree that it was unnecessary. Scientific racism is indeed pseudoscience, but "Easter eggs" are not an especially encyclopedic way to manage links, per e.g. the principle of least WP:ASTONISHment. Generalrelative (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

white supremacy

should read Atlantic Slave trade and Jim Crow laws 208.38.229.201 (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Is the Nazi Germany section possibly original research? The Nazis were Aryan supremacists, they never recognized the concept of the white race. This seems like the equivalent of describing Hutu Power as a "black supremacist" ideology. Helioz9 (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. I imagine we should:

Add something on how white supremacy contrasts with other forms of scientific racism or ethnic supremacy. I imagine there will be some writing on the topic.

It's to be noted that Nazi racial policy was influenced by transnational eugenic policy which I understand to have been related to white supremacy in the US - so this connection should probably be explored.

There are probably complicated questions about precisely what "white" means in white supremacy - there may be some writing on this. Talpedia 14:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)